Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they
are unlikely to succeed .
I largely disagree with the contention as dissuading students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed can have major deleterious effects both on the student and the education system. As the quality of the person being assessed is also unclear, despite having some beneficial effects, the system is likely to break down due to various reasons and thus must be rethought.
First of all, Forcing a student to follow a certain rigid path in which he has no interest or experience whatsoever might break the spirit of the student. A lot of students have different dreams and outlooks for their future and when they are denied that, their moral may go down drastically. Except for certain strong individuals, most people cannot readily act to change in their surrounding environment and as they are generally apathetic to the task in hand, their work may seem purfuctory at best. So, even if they are employed in the fields of study chosen for them, there may not be any significant improvement in both the student and the field itself in many years to come.
Secondly, the quality of the assessment that will be done to the students is a question that needs to be answered. It can very well be that due to an improper and parochial outlook, the judge decides against some path for a student in which he might have succeeded. Also, human beings are susceptible to change. One prospective future that might look bleak for a student now, may change momentarily in the future due to the change in environment, outlook and mentality of the student himself. Moreover, no perfect research exists in which we can say for sure that a student can never do well in a certain field of study. Thus the quality of the assessment and the mercurial nature of human mind is needed to be kept in mind when making a decision in this cases.
However, if the assessment is done by qualified, professional individuals, who not only have amassed great experience in the field but also are able to put themselves in the shoes of the students, this strategy may be quite fruitful. As students will be chosen for fields of work in which they are likely to succeed based on their strengths, it might be easier for them to adapt to their fields readily. They are also likely to improve their individual talents and prove fecund for the field itself. As some students are largely undecided, what to do with their future, If they are able to adapt to the change in their milieu and perspective, this strategy might just be the puch that they need to be a part of the larger society.
In conclusion, to go along with the author's suggestion we have to keep in mind the judgement process, it's quality, its effect on students and whether the student will be able to cope with the process over all which is quite an arduous task when we think of an entire country. Depending on these selections, however, we can decide for ourselves that whether it will be a system that slowly eat away at the minds of our students and be pernicious to the sytem overall or a great boon which will persist to improve our society and education sector in the years to come.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 622, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...er do well in a certain field of study. Thus the quality of the assessment and the m...
^^^^
Line 5, column 751, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... kept in mind when making a decision in this cases. However, if the assessment is...
^^^^
Line 9, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... In conclusion, to go along with the authors suggestion we have to keep in mind the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, well, except for, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2597.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 559.0 442.535393258 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6457960644 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86242540663 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53634586156 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450805008945 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 800.1 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.1860284841 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.277777778 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0555555556 23.4991977007 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224309164375 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0838143946071 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106139036239 0.0758088955206 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154064821505 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0916327558976 0.0667264976115 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.93 48.8420337079 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.